IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2017 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE BUDIHAL R.B. CRIMINAL PETITION NO.7300 OF 2017 BETWEEN:
Chethan Sri. Chethan Kumar Choudhary, S/o Mohanlal Choudhary, Aged about 34 years, R/at No.105, BDA Layout, Near Apsara Silk, Avalahalli, JP Nagar, 9th Phase, 3rd Block, Doddakallasandra, Bangalore-560062. (By Sri. Kumara K.G., Advocate) AND:
State By Madivala Police Station Bengaluru – 560 068 Represented by Special Public Prosecutor High Court of Karnataka Bengaluru – 560 001 (By Sri. K.Nageshwarappa, HCGP) ... Petitioner … Respondent This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. to enlarge the petitioner on bail in the event of his arrest in Cr.No.308 /2017 of Madivala P.S., Mysore District for the Offence P/U/S 3, 4, 5, 6,7 of I.T.P. Act and Sec.370 of IPC.
This Criminal Petition coming on for orders this day, the Court made the following:
O R D E R This is the petition filed by the petitioner-accused No.13 under Section 438 of CR.P.C. seeking anticipatory bail to direct the respondent-police to release the petitioners on bail in the event of their arrest by the petitioners for the offences punishable under Sections 3, 4, 5 6 and 7 of the Immoral Traffic Prevention Act and also Section 370 of IPC registered in respondent police station Crime No. 308/2017.
2. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner-accused NO.12 so alos the learned HCGP for the respondent State.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner made the submission that as per the case of the prosecution, accused Nos. 1 to 12 have been arrested and they have been granted with bail. It is also his submission so far as the petitioner is concerned that it is only on the basis of the information given by the other accused he has been arrayed as accused No.13 in the said case. He further submitted so far as the accused No.13 is concerned, there is no prima-facie material placed by the prosecution, hence it is his contention that by imposing reasonable conditions petitioner-accused No.13 may be admitted to anticipatory bail.
4. Per contra, learned HCGP submitted that looking to contents of the plaint, it is stated that the owner of the brothel house was doing the said business and the girls used to be sent to the said brothel hosue through the present petitioner and one Anwar Pasha @ Kiran Pasha and one Imran. He also made the submission that after conducting the raid on the brothel house, the police have recorded the statement of five victim girls wherein, they have stated it is the present petitioner herein who approached them on the assurance that they will be given employment and the present petitioner pushed them to the brothel house.
Hence he submitted in view of the statement of the victim girls, so also the averments made in he complaint that the girls used to be sent to the said brothel house through these present petitioner. Therefore, custodial interrogation is necessary and the petitioner is not entitled for the anticipatory bail 5. Perused the grounds urged in the bail petition, FIR, complaint and also the order of the learned Sessions Judge rejecting the bail petition of the present petitioner.
6. Looking to the complaint averments, there is submission of the complainant that the owner of the said brothel house was running the said lodge and the girls used to be sent to the said brothel house through one Chetan @ Rahul i.e., present petitioner then Anwar Pasha @ Kiran Pasha and Imran. It is also submitted in the complaint gains support from the statement of the victim girls wherein also they have stated the name of the present petitioner that he brought them on the assurance that employment will be given to them ultimately they were pushed to the brothel house.
In view of the above materials placed by the prosecution at this stage, custodial interrogation of the present petitioner is required, it is not a fit case for the grant of anticipatory bail. Hence petition is rejected.
Sd/- JUDGE Bsv